Hillary isn’t the only Obama Regime official to use a private email address and to stonewall.
While the passel of Obama Regime stenographers and PR flacks in the Lame Stream Media aren’t gushing over an allegedly terrific jobs report, while failing to mention the record numbers of people who have left the workforce, and going wall-to-wall on Harrison Ford’s plane crash, they’ve been spending an incredible amount of time discussing Hillary Clinton’s latest scandal, her private email server and its many addresses. We haven’t even had a chance to process the story about the gazillions of dollars that foreign governments funneled into the Clinton Foundation, and here’s another Clinton scandal.
The thing is that this time it’s not the VRWC (Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, of which I am a proud member. Yesterday at about 5:30 a.m. local time, I almost choked on my V-8 when I heard the Morning Joe crew, over at the 24/7 televised nuthouse, raking Mrs. Clinton over the coals, even dredging up the missing Rose Law Firm records and Craig Livingstone! Seriously? I had to wonder what is going on. We know that there is no love lost between the Obamas and the Clintons. Has the Regime put out the word that the One does not want to pass the crown to Hillary? Or is it something else?
You see, Hillary isn’t the only Obama Regime official who used private email in an attempt to hide something. The media is high dungeon over Hillary’s outrageous behavior, but I haven’t heard a word about what has been going on at the EPA. From The Washington Times:
A federal judge warned the EPA on Monday not to discriminate against conservative groups in how it responds to open-records requests, issuing a legal spanking to the agency that he said may have lied to the court and showed “apathy and carelessness” in carrying out the law.
Judge Royce C. Lamberth said he couldn’t prove that officials intentionally destroyed documents, but he described as “absurdity” the way the Environmental Protection Agency handled a Freedom of Information Act request from the Landmark Legal Foundation and then the court case stemming from it — including late last week admitting that it misled the court about how it went about searching for documents.
In a scorching 25-page opinion, the judge accused the agency of insulting him by first claiming it had conducted a full search for records, then years later retracted that claim in a footnote to another document without giving any explanation for how it erred.